DOCSLIB.ORG

A Dilemma for Libertarianism Karl Widerquist

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Dilemma for Libertarianism Karl Widerquist Georgetown University From the SelectedWorks of Karl Widerquist February, 2009 A Dilemma for Libertarianism Karl Widerquist Available at: https://works.bepress.com/widerquist/6/ A Dilemma for Libertarianism Karl Widerquist 1 Department of Politics University of Reading This is an early version of a paper that was published as: “A Dilemma for Libertarianism,” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics , Volume 8, No. 1, February 2009, pp. 43-72. Please refer to and cite only the published version, at: http://ppe.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/1/43 “Is it right to pay taxes to the Roman Empire?” “Show me a coin in which the taxes are paid. … Whose image is on it?” “Caesar’s.” “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…” -Property theory from the Bible : Mathew, Chapter 22, Verses 17-21 Libertarianism can be thought of in at least three ways: It is the ideology supporting (1) maximal equal liberty understood as self-ownership or noninterference, (2) strong, inviolable property rights without regard to the pattern of distribution of those rights, or (3) a so-called libertarian state, which is either a government limited to protecting property rights and self-ownership or no government at all.2 Natural rights libertarians think of their philosophy as embodying all three of these claims, believing that a commitment to maximal equal freedom entails a commitment to strong property rights, which in turn entails a commitment to a libertarian state. 1 I call the connection between these claims the “argument from liberty” for a libertarian state. 3 This article concerns the argument from liberty and does not apply to other arguments for the libertarian state, such as arguments that a libertarian state is more efficient and productive 4 or more suitable to human nature 5 than other states. Libertarians in the natural rights tradition consider the argument from liberty to be the most important argument for the libertarian state. 6 Critics of the argument from liberty have usually focused on the first two claims, arguing that freedom is not the most important value, 7 that the libertarian conception of freedom is flawed, 8 or that self-ownership does not necessarily imply strong property rights. 9 The connection between the second and third claims is often accepted by both opponents and supporters of libertarianism. This article challenges that connection, making a fundamental criticism of the argument from liberty by demonstrating that the inviolability of property rights does not necessarily imply a libertarian state. This article argues that natural rights principles may allow a libertarian state to exist but they could as well allow monarchy or an activist welfare state, and would seem to imply the acceptance of whatever property-rights regime happens to be in place. This article argues for that conclusion by making the case using natural rights theory that the state has extensive property rights in privately-held assets. Under this view, taxation and possibly regulation do not constitute interference with private property rights; they are manifestations of government-held property rights. If this article successfully demonstrates that a libertarian state does not necessarily follow from libertarian principles of natural property rights, it poses a serious dilemma for libertarians, forcing them to choose between the argument from liberty and the 2 argument that only a libertarian state is justifiable. The term “right-libertarianism” is more accurate for the philosophy under scrutiny here because it does not concern left- libertarianism and libertarian socialism. For simplicity, I call right-libertarians by the term call themselves. Except where clarification is necessary, this article uses the term “libertarian” as shorthand right-libertarians in the natural rights tradition. Part 1 considers the natural rights principles of property ownership and liberty. Part 2 demonstrates how a very unlibertarian state, a property-owning monarchy, can develop out of a commitment to property rights, and how government rights to tax and regulate property can be consistent with natural property rights. Part 3 briefly discusses the possibility of divided ownership between government and private holders. Part 4 considers historical arguments that might eliminate or limit the extent of government property rights. Part 5 considers objections that libertarians might make against the legitimacy of any property-owning government. Failing to eliminate a property-owning government, Part 6 considers the limits that libertarian theory might put on government property rights. Part 7 discusses the larger implications of this dilemma for libertarianism. 1. Natural Rights Libertarianism To have liberty, in the libertarian understanding, is to be free from interference with whatever rights a person happens to possess. Rights necessarily include self- ownership and might include property ownership of external assets (i.e. everything not covered by self-ownership). This is the rights-based conception of negative liberty. It is not the only conception of negative liberty, but it is the only one under concern here. 3 Interference with a right that a person holds violates liberty, but interference with something a person does not hold as a right cannot violate this conception of negative liberty. If you own a knife and I take it away from you, I have interfered with your negative liberty, because you have a right to hold that knife. If instead you attempt to plunge that knife into my chest, and I stop you, I have not interfered with your negative liberty because you had no right to stab me. To have self-ownership is to have all the rights over oneself that the owner of an object has over it. Formal self-ownership means that a person is the legal owner of her own body, skills, and ideas. A starving person who must sell her labor to others has formal self-ownership, but lacks effective or robust self-ownership. This article uses the term “propertyless” for people who do not have enough external assets to maintain effective self-ownership. The natural rights argument for libertarianism asserts four principles that are meant to exhaust the conditions necessary for establishing just property rights in external assets. Robert Nozick names three of them—original acquisition, voluntary transfer, and rectification. 10 I argue that natural property rights theory logically requires a fourth principle that I call “statute of limitations.” Most libertarians—including Nozick, David Boaz, Erick Mac, and Murray Rothbard 11 —use modified versions of John Locke’s labor mixing theory of unilateral appropriation to justify original acquisition. 12 Under this theory, the first person to significantly alter an asset by laboring with it attains ownership of it as long as what Nozick calls “the Lockean proviso” is fulfilled. 13 The proviso states that appropriation is valid at least where there is “enough and as good left in common for others,” 14 which “is 4 meant to ensure that the situation of others is not worsened” by appropriation. 15 Some libertarians—including Jan Narveson and Israel Kirzner—replace labor mixing with other principles such as first use or discovery and reject the proviso.16 Section 6C considers the ramifications of the proviso. Once ownership is established, voluntary transfer and rectification of past wrongs determine how property rights can be legitimately transferred from one person to another. A complete theory of property would have to spell out rectification more fully, but a general theory of property only needs to recognize that some such principle exists. These three principles must be supplemented by a fourth because, on their own, they cannot establish property rights in a world where little or no property can be traced in an unbroken chain of just transfers to original appropriation. Therefore, natural rights libertarians are logically committed to some kind of statute of limitations. Richard Epstein in a consequentialist argument for libertarian property rights gives a thorough description of the principle using the terms adverse possession, statute of limitations, and prescriptive rights. He concludes that for a property system to work there must be some period of time after which the original claim against unlawful takings expires. 17 A statute of limitations would have to be spelled out fully to create a complete theory of property, but to do so would require a legal treatise. Epstein offers one important specification, the principle of relative title, 18 which essential means that A cannot claim property against B because B stole it from C. Only C (or C’s heirs) can make that claim. If B’s title is older than A’s, B’s claim beats A’s. Relative title upholds a statute-of-limitations principle that Rothbard endorses without naming, writing, “where the victims are lost in antiquity, the land property belongs to any non-criminals who are in current possession.” 19 Other 5 libertarians rely on it tacitly or explicitly. 20 Nozick does not explicitly mention it, but some of his statements imply tacit endorsement. 21 This conception of property rights demands that a person has a right to the freedom from interference with the property she happens to own, but no natural right to become a property owner 22 or to gain possession of any particular asset that she has not acquired through trade or appropriation. Importantly for my argument, libertarians claim that a person with limited rights in a piece of property does not necessarily have a claim to greater rights in that property. For example, a renter holds some property rights in her house, but she does not therefore obtain the additional rights that would make her a full owner. Absent some application of the statue of limitations principle, only a voluntary transfer from or rectification of past wrongs by the holder of those rights can be reasons to transform a person’s partial claim to an asset into a claim to full ownership in that asset.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Political Ideas and Movements That Created the Modern World
    harri+b.cov 27/5/03 4:15 pm Page 1 UNDERSTANDINGPOLITICS Understanding RITTEN with the A2 component of the GCE WGovernment and Politics A level in mind, this book is a comprehensive introduction to the political ideas and movements that created the modern world. Underpinned by the work of major thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Marx, Mill, Weber and others, the first half of the book looks at core political concepts including the British and European political issues state and sovereignty, the nation, democracy, representation and legitimacy, freedom, equality and rights, obligation and citizenship. The role of ideology in modern politics and society is also discussed. The second half of the book addresses established ideologies such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism and Nationalism, before moving on to more recent movements such as Environmentalism and Ecologism, Fascism, and Feminism. The subject is covered in a clear, accessible style, including Understanding a number of student-friendly features, such as chapter summaries, key points to consider, definitions and tips for further sources of information. There is a definite need for a text of this kind. It will be invaluable for students of Government and Politics on introductory courses, whether they be A level candidates or undergraduates. political ideas KEVIN HARRISON IS A LECTURER IN POLITICS AND HISTORY AT MANCHESTER COLLEGE OF ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY. HE IS ALSO AN ASSOCIATE McNAUGHTON LECTURER IN SOCIAL SCIENCES WITH THE OPEN UNIVERSITY. HE HAS WRITTEN ARTICLES ON POLITICS AND HISTORY AND IS JOINT AUTHOR, WITH TONY BOYD, OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION: EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION? and TONY BOYD WAS FORMERLY HEAD OF GENERAL STUDIES AT XAVERIAN VI FORM COLLEGE, MANCHESTER, WHERE HE TAUGHT POLITICS AND HISTORY.
    [Show full text]
  • 9780748678662.Pdf
    PREHISTORIC MYTHS IN MODERN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 55200_Widerquist.indd200_Widerquist.indd i 225/11/165/11/16 110:320:32 AAMM 55200_Widerquist.indd200_Widerquist.indd iiii 225/11/165/11/16 110:320:32 AAMM PREHISTORIC MYTHS IN MODERN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Karl Widerquist and Grant S. McCall 55200_Widerquist.indd200_Widerquist.indd iiiiii 225/11/165/11/16 110:320:32 AAMM Edinburgh University Press is one of the leading university presses in the UK. We publish academic books and journals in our selected subject areas across the humanities and social sciences, combining cutting-edge scholarship with high editorial and production values to produce academic works of lasting importance. For more information visit our website: edinburghuniversitypress.com © Karl Widerquist and Grant S. McCall, 2017 Edinburgh University Press Ltd The Tun – Holyrood Road, 12(2f) Jackson’s Entry, Edinburgh EH8 8PJ Typeset in 11/13 Adobe Sabon by IDSUK (DataConnection) Ltd, and printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 0 7486 7866 2 (hardback) ISBN 978 0 7486 7867 9 (webready PDF) ISBN 978 0 7486 7869 3 (epub) The right of Karl Widerquist and Grant S. McCall to be identifi ed as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI No. 2498). 55200_Widerquist.indd200_Widerquist.indd iivv 225/11/165/11/16 110:320:32 AAMM CONTENTS Preface vii Acknowledgments
    [Show full text]
  • Gothic Riffs Anon., the Secret Tribunal
    Gothic Riffs Anon., The Secret Tribunal. courtesy of the sadleir-Black collection, University of Virginia Library Gothic Riffs Secularizing the Uncanny in the European Imaginary, 1780–1820 ) Diane Long hoeveler The OhiO STaTe UniverSiT y Press Columbus Copyright © 2010 by The Ohio State University. all rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data hoeveler, Diane Long. Gothic riffs : secularizing the uncanny in the european imaginary, 1780–1820 / Diane Long hoeveler. p. cm. includes bibliographical references and index. iSBn-13: 978-0-8142-1131-1 (cloth : alk. paper) iSBn-10: 0-8142-1131-3 (cloth : alk. paper) iSBn-13: 978-0-8142-9230-3 (cd-rom) 1. Gothic revival (Literature)—influence. 2. Gothic revival (Literature)—history and criticism. 3. Gothic fiction (Literary genre)—history and criticism. i. Title. Pn3435.h59 2010 809'.9164—dc22 2009050593 This book is available in the following editions: Cloth (iSBn 978-0-8142-1131-1) CD-rOM (iSBn 978-0-8142-9230-3) Cover design by Jennifer Shoffey Forsythe. Type set in adobe Minion Pro. Printed by Thomson-Shore, inc. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the american national Standard for information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSi Z39.48-1992. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 This book is for David: January 29, 2010 Riff: A simple musical phrase repeated over and over, often with a strong or syncopated rhythm, and frequently used as background to a solo improvisa- tion. —OED - c o n t e n t s - List of figures xi Preface and Acknowledgments xiii introduction Gothic Riffs: songs in the Key of secularization 1 chapter 1 Gothic Mediations: shakespeare, the sentimental, and the secularization of Virtue 35 chapter 2 Rescue operas” and Providential Deism 74 chapter 3 Ghostly Visitants: the Gothic Drama and the coexistence of immanence and transcendence 103 chapter 4 Entr’acte.
    [Show full text]
  • Free to Choose Video Tape Collection
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt1n39r38j No online items Inventory to the Free to Choose video tape collection Finding aid prepared by Natasha Porfirenko Hoover Institution Library and Archives © 2008 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6003 [email protected] URL: http://www.hoover.org/library-and-archives Inventory to the Free to Choose 80201 1 video tape collection Title: Free to Choose video tape collection Date (inclusive): 1977-1987 Collection Number: 80201 Contributing Institution: Hoover Institution Library and Archives Language of Material: English Physical Description: 10 manuscript boxes, 10 motion picture film reels, 42 videoreels(26.6 Linear Feet) Abstract: Motion picture film, video tapes, and film strips of the television series Free to Choose, featuring Milton Friedman and relating to laissez-faire economics, produced in 1980 by Penn Communications and television station WQLN in Erie, Pennsylvania. Includes commercial and master film copies, unedited film, and correspondence, memoranda, and legal agreements dated from 1977 to 1987 relating to production of the series. Digitized copies of many of the sound and video recordings in this collection, as well as some of Friedman's writings, are available at http://miltonfriedman.hoover.org . Creator: Friedman, Milton, 1912-2006 Creator: Penn Communications Creator: WQLN (Television station : Erie, Pa.) Hoover Institution Library & Archives Access The collection is open for research; materials must be requested at least two business days in advance of intended use. Publication Rights For copyright status, please contact the Hoover Institution Library & Archives. Acquisition Information Acquired by the Hoover Institution Library & Archives in 1980, with increments received in 1988 and 1989.
    [Show full text]
  • Markets Not Capitalism Explores the Gap Between Radically Freed Markets and the Capitalist-Controlled Markets That Prevail Today
    individualist anarchism against bosses, inequality, corporate power, and structural poverty Edited by Gary Chartier & Charles W. Johnson Individualist anarchists believe in mutual exchange, not economic privilege. They believe in freed markets, not capitalism. They defend a distinctive response to the challenges of ending global capitalism and achieving social justice: eliminate the political privileges that prop up capitalists. Massive concentrations of wealth, rigid economic hierarchies, and unsustainable modes of production are not the results of the market form, but of markets deformed and rigged by a network of state-secured controls and privileges to the business class. Markets Not Capitalism explores the gap between radically freed markets and the capitalist-controlled markets that prevail today. It explains how liberating market exchange from state capitalist privilege can abolish structural poverty, help working people take control over the conditions of their labor, and redistribute wealth and social power. Featuring discussions of socialism, capitalism, markets, ownership, labor struggle, grassroots privatization, intellectual property, health care, racism, sexism, and environmental issues, this unique collection brings together classic essays by Cleyre, and such contemporary innovators as Kevin Carson and Roderick Long. It introduces an eye-opening approach to radical social thought, rooted equally in libertarian socialism and market anarchism. “We on the left need a good shake to get us thinking, and these arguments for market anarchism do the job in lively and thoughtful fashion.” – Alexander Cockburn, editor and publisher, Counterpunch “Anarchy is not chaos; nor is it violence. This rich and provocative gathering of essays by anarchists past and present imagines society unburdened by state, markets un-warped by capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic Thomas Sargent, ,, ^ Neil Wallace (P
    Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review Some Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic Thomas Sargent, ,, ^ Neil Wallace (p. 1) District Conditions (p.18) Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review vol. 5, no 3 This publication primarily presents economic research aimed at improving policymaking by the Federal Reserve System and other governmental authorities. Produced in the Research Department. Edited by Arthur J. Rolnick, Richard M. Todd, Kathleen S. Rolfe, and Alan Struthers, Jr. Graphic design and charts drawn by Phil Swenson, Graphic Services Department. Address requests for additional copies to the Research Department. Federal Reserve Bank, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480. Articles may be reprinted if the source is credited and the Research Department is provided with copies of reprints. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis or the Federal Reserve System. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review/Fall 1981 Some Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic Thomas J. Sargent Neil Wallace Advisers Research Department Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and Professors of Economics University of Minnesota In his presidential address to the American Economic in at least two ways. (For simplicity, we will refer to Association (AEA), Milton Friedman (1968) warned publicly held interest-bearing government debt as govern- not to expect too much from monetary policy. In ment bonds.) One way the public's demand for bonds particular, Friedman argued that monetary policy could constrains the government is by setting an upper limit on not permanently influence the levels of real output, the real stock of government bonds relative to the size of unemployment, or real rates of return on securities.
    [Show full text]
  • Forms of Government
    communism An economic ideology Political and economic theory derived from the ideas of karl marx. Government owns all Advantages DISAdvantages businesses and farms and - It embodies - It hampers provides its people's equality personal growth healthcare, education and - It makes health (promotes laziness, welfare. care, education, greed, etc). and employment - The government accessible to has the power to citizens. dictate and run the - It does not allow lives of the people. business - It does not give A Few Examples: monopolies. financial freedom. - China (1949 – Present) - Cuba (1959 – Present) - North Korea (1948 – Present) “I am communist because I “Communism is like believe that the comMunist prohibition. It’s a good idea, ideal is a state form of but it won’t work.” christianity” - will Rogers - Alexander Zhuravlyovv Socialism Government owns many of An Economic Ideology the larger industries and provide education, health and welfare services while Advantages DISAdvantages allowing citizens some - There is a balance - Bureaucracy hampers economic choices between wealth and the delivery of earnings services. - There is equal access - People are to health care and unmotivated to A Few Examples: education develop Vietnam - It breaks down social entrepreneurial skills. Laos barriers - The government has Denmark too much control Finland “The meaning of peace is “Socialism is workable only the absence of opposition to in heaven where it isn’t need socialism” and in where they’ve got it.” - Karl Marx - Cecil Palmer Capitalism Free-market
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarianism Karl Widerquist, Georgetown University-Qatar
    Georgetown University From the SelectedWorks of Karl Widerquist 2008 Libertarianism Karl Widerquist, Georgetown University-Qatar Available at: https://works.bepress.com/widerquist/8/ Libertarianism distinct ideologies using the same label. Yet, they have a few commonalities. [233] [V1b-Edit] [Karl Widerquist] [] [w6728] Libertarian socialism: Libertarian socialists The word “libertarian” in the sense of the believe that all authority (government or combination of the word “liberty” and the private, dictatorial or democratic) is suffix “-ian” literally means “of or about inherently dangerous and possibly tyrannical. freedom.” It is an antonym of “authoritarian,” Some endorse the motto: where there is and the simplest dictionary definition is one authority, there is no freedom. who advocates liberty (Simpson and Weiner Libertarian socialism is also known as 1989). But the name “libertarianism” has “anarchism,” “libertarian communism,” and been adopted by several very different “anarchist communism,” It has a variety of political movements. Property rights offshoots including “anarcho-syndicalism,” advocates have popularized the association of which stresses worker control of enterprises the term with their ideology in the United and was very influential in Latin American States and to a lesser extent in other English- and in Spain in the 1930s (Rocker 1989 speaking countries. But they only began [1938]; Woodcock 1962); “feminist using the term in 1955 (Russell 1955). Before anarchism,” which stresses person freedoms that, and in most of the rest of the world (Brown 1993); and “eco-anarchism” today, the term has been associated almost (Bookchin 1997), which stresses community exclusively with leftists groups advocating control of the local economy and gives egalitarian property rights or even the libertarian socialism connection with Green abolition of private property, such as and environmental movements.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse
    John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Faculty Research Working Papers Series Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse Nov 2003 RWP03-044 The views expressed in the KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or Harvard University. All works posted here are owned and copyrighted by the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism1 Mathias Risse John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University October 25, 2003 1. Left-libertarianism is not a new star on the sky of political philosophy, but it was through the recent publication of Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner’s anthologies that it became clearly visible as a contemporary movement with distinct historical roots. “Left- libertarian theories of justice,” says Vallentyne, “hold that agents are full self-owners and that natural resources are owned in some egalitarian manner. Unlike most versions of egalitarianism, left-libertarianism endorses full self-ownership, and thus places specific limits on what others may do to one’s person without one’s permission. Unlike right- libertarianism, it holds that natural resources may be privately appropriated only with the permission of, or with a significant payment to, the members of society. Like right- libertarianism, left-libertarianism holds that the basic rights of individuals are ownership rights. Left-libertarianism is promising because it coherently underwrites both some demands of material equality and some limits on the permissible means of promoting this equality” (Vallentyne and Steiner (2000a), p 1; emphasis added).
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarian Party at Sea on Land
    Libertarian Party at Sea on Land To Mom who taught me the Golden Rule and Henry George 121 years ahead of his time and still counting Libertarian Party at Sea on Land Author: Harold Kyriazi Book ISBN: 978-1-952489-02-0 First Published 2000 Robert Schalkenbach Foundation Official Publishers of the works of Henry George The Robert Schalkenbach Foundation (RSF) is a private operating foundation, founded in 1925, to promote public awareness of the social philosophy and economic reforms advocated by famed 19th century thinker and activist, Henry George. Today, RSF remains true to its founding doctrine, and through efforts focused on education, communities, outreach, and publishing, works to create a world in which all people are afforded the basic necessities of life and the natural world is protected for generations to come. ROBERT SCHALKENBACH FOUND ATION Robert Schalkenbach Foundation [email protected] www.schalkenbach.org Libertarian Party at Sea on Land By Harold Kyriazi ROBERT SCHALKENBACH FOUNDATION New York City 2020 Acknowledgments Dan Sullivan, my longtime fellow Pittsburgher and geo-libertarian, not only introduced me to this subject about seven years ago, but has been a wonderful teacher and tireless consultant over the years since then. I’m deeply indebted to him, and appreciative of his steadfast efforts to enlighten his fellow libertarians here in Pittsburgh and elsewhere. Robin Robertson, a fellow geo-libertarian whom I met at the 1999 Council of Georgist Organizations Conference, gave me detailed constructive criticism on an early draft, brought Ayn Rand’s essay on the broadcast spectrum to my attention, helped conceive the cover illustration, and helped in other ways too numerous to mention.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lost and the New 'Liberal World' of Welfare Capitalism
    Social Policy & Society (2017) 16:3, 405–422 C Cambridge University Press 2016. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. doi:10.1017/S1474746415000676 The Lost and the New ‘Liberal World’ of Welfare Capitalism: A Critical Assessment of Gøsta Esping-Andersen’s The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism a Quarter Century Later Christopher Deeming School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol E-mail: [email protected] Celebrating the 25th birthday of Gøsta Esping-Andersen’s seminal book The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990), this article looks back at the old ‘liberal world’ and examines the new. In so doing, it contributes to debates and the literature on liberal welfare state development in three main ways. First, it considers the concept of ‘liberalism’ and liberal ideas about welfare provision contained within Three Worlds. Here we are also interested in how liberal thought has conceptualised the (welfare) state, and the class-mobilisation theory of welfare-state development. Second, the article elaborates on ‘neo-’liberal social reforms and current welfare arrangements in the English-speaking democracies and their welfare states. Finally, it considers the extent to which the English-speaking world of welfare capitalism is still meaningfully ‘liberal’ and coherent today. Key words: Welfare regimes, welfare state capitalism, liberalism, neoliberalism, comparative social policy. Introduction Esping-Andersen’s The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Three Worlds hereafter) has transformed and inspired social research for a quarter of a century.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pursuit of Accord: Toward a Theory of Justice with a Second-Best Approach to the Insider-Outsider Problem
    Georgetown University From the SelectedWorks of Karl Widerquist Fall 2019 The urP suit of Accord: Toward a Theory of Justice With a Second-Best Approach to the Insider- Outsider Problem Karl Widerquist Available at: https://works.bepress.com/widerquist/76/ The Pursuit of Accord: Toward a Theory of Justice With a Second-Best Approach to the Insider-Outsider Problem Karl Widerquist Georgetown University-Qatar [email protected] This is an early version of a paper that is now forthcoming in the journal Raisons Politiques (it should be out by the late spring). If you decide to cite or quote it, please refer to the published version if you can. The hardest thing for any society to do is to avoid oppressing its least advantaged individuals. If we fail to find a truly inclusive set of basic principles, the social structure is not a true social contract but an insider-outsider contract, the kind criticized by Carole Pateman and Charles Mills.1 One could say nearly the same thing about a set of natural rights that aren’t as natural and undeniable as their proponents would like to believe. Although the rights in the set might be universal in some sense, the set chosen favors a group of insiders. This article argues that most mainstream theories of justice offer first-best approaches to the insider-outsider problem. Although they have other second-best aspects, they presume that humans can create a basic social structure “that no one could reasonably reject.”2 This article argues to the contrary that no first-best solution to the insider-outsider problem exists.
    [Show full text]